FirehosePipes Outputhttp://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_id=e138f5817b659ac8307303654ae44cf9
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:54:34 +0000http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/Adam Thierer on Permissionless Innovationhttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2014/05/13/thierer/
Adam Thierer, senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, discusses his latest book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom. Thierer discusses which types of policies promote technological discoveries as well as those that stifle the freedom to innovate. He also takes a look at new technologies -- such as driverless cars, drones, big data, smartphone apps, and Google Glass -- and how the American public will adapt to them.http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5693Tue, 13 May 2014 10:00:40 +0000

Adam Thierer, senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, discusses his latest book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom. Thierer discusses which types of policies promote technological discoveries as well as those that stifle the freedom to innovate. He also takes a look at new technologies — such as driverless cars, drones, big data, smartphone apps, and Google Glass — and how the American public will adapt to them.

Related Links

]]>Patrick Byrne on online retailers accepting Bitcoinhttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2014/04/22/byrne/
Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, discusses how Overstock.com became one of the first online retail stores to accept Bitcoin. Byrne provides insight into how Bitcoin lowers transaction costs, making it beneficial to both retailers and consumers, and how governments are attempting to limit access to Bitcoin. Byrne also discusses his project DeepCapture.com, which raises awareness for market manipulation and naked short selling, as well as his philanthropic work and support for education reform.http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5681Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:00:49 +0000

Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, discusses how Overstock.com became one of the first online retail stores to accept Bitcoin. Byrne provides insight into how Bitcoin lowers transaction costs, making it beneficial to both retailers and consumers, and how governments are attempting to limit access to Bitcoin. Byrne also discusses his project DeepCapture.com, which raises awareness for market manipulation and naked short selling, as well as his philanthropic work and support for education reform.

]]>Jeff Garzik on Bitcoin developmenthttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2014/03/25/garzik/
Jeff Garzik, senior software engineer at Bitpay and one of Bitcoin's core developers, discusses the future of Bitcoin. Garzik talks with us about what it's like to be a developer for Bitcoin; how to make the cryptocurrency more secure; what Bitcoin developers have learned from the Mt. Gox crisis; new features that we'll see from Bitcoin this year; and what we can expect from Bitcoin 2.0.http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5673Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:00:34 +0000

Jeff Garzik, senior software engineer at Bitpay and one of Bitcoin’s core developers, discusses the future of Bitcoin. Garzik talks with us about what it’s like to be a developer for Bitcoin; how to make the cryptocurrency more secure; what Bitcoin developers have learned from the Mt. Gox crisis; new features that we’ll see from Bitcoin this year; and what we can expect from Bitcoin 2.0.

Related Links

]]>Shane Greenstein on bias in Wikipedia articleshttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2014/03/11/greenstein/
Shane Greenstein, Kellogg Chair in Information Technology at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, discusses his recent paper, <em> Collective Intelligence and Neutral Point of View: The Case of Wikipedia </em>, coauthored by Harvard assistant professor Feng Zhu. Greenstein and Zhu's paper takes a look at whether Linus' Law applies to Wikipedia articles. Do Wikipedia articles have a slant or bias? If so, how can we measure it? And, do articles become less biased over time, as more contributors become involved? Greenstein explains his findings.http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5655Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:00:08 +0000

Shane Greenstein, Kellogg Chair in Information Technology at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, discusses his recent paper, Collective Intelligence and Neutral Point of View: The Case of Wikipedia, coauthored by Harvard assistant professor Feng Zhu. Greenstein and Zhu’s paper takes a look at whether Linus’ Law applies to Wikipedia articles. Do Wikipedia articles have a slant or bias? If so, how can we measure it? And, do articles become less biased over time, as more contributors become involved? Greenstein explains his findings.

]]>Ladar Levison on Lavabithttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2014/02/04/levison/
Ladar Levison, founder of encrypted email service Lavabit, discusses recent government action that led him to shut down his firm. When it was suspected that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden used Lavabit's email service, the FBI issued a National Security Letter ordering Levison to hand over SSL keys, jeopardizing the privacy of Lavabit's 410,000 users. Levison discusses his inspiration for founding Lavabit and why he chose to suspend the service; how Lavabit was different from email services like Gmail; developments in his case and how the Fourth Amendment has come into play; and his involvement with the recently-formed Dark Mail Technical Alliance.http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5605Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:00:16 +0000

Ladar Levison, founder of encrypted email service Lavabit, discusses recent government action that led him to shut down his firm. When it was suspected that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden used Lavabit’s email service, the FBI issued a National Security Letter ordering Levison to hand over SSL keys, jeopardizing the privacy of Lavabit’s 410,000 users. Levison discusses his inspiration for founding Lavabit and why he chose to suspend the service; how Lavabit was different from email services like Gmail; developments in his case and how the Fourth Amendment has come into play; and his involvement with the recently-formed Dark Mail Technical Alliance.

]]>Are millennials the cypherpunk generation?http://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/07/millennials-cypherpunks
<p>A former employee of the defunct black market Atlantis <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://atlantisblog.org/silk-road-subdued-but-this-ex-blackmarket-employee-believes-they-only-released-a-monster/">reflects</a> on the demise of Silk Road. He details that the rush to replace the number one deep web market is well underway, and he notes it&#39;s not all driven by the money to be made:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What [is] striking to me as an outside observer is there seems to be no shortage of well educated American males in their late 20′s (Manning/Snowden and now Ulbricht) willing to sacrifice bright futures and their own personal liberty to highlight the draconian laws and downright totalitarianism being inflicted by their government on the populace[.]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are two kinds of outlaws that are most difficult to deter: nihilists in it for the lulz, and idealists. The Joker and V. For millennials, these seem to be two sides of the same coin.</p>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/07/millennials-cypherpunksMon, 07 Oct 2013 20:01:20 +0000What was Silk Road's share of the Bitcoin economy?http://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/03/silk-road-share-of-bitcoin
<p>Great <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://thegenesisblock.com/analysis-silk-roads-historical-impact-bitcoin/">analysis</a> of Silk Road&#39;s historical impact on Bitcoin from The Genesis Block. This is illuminating:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[T]he complaint states that site’s total revenue between February 2011 and July 2013 was 9.5 million bitcoin. Over that same period approximately 225 million bitcoin were transacted over the block chain, of which the 9.5 million in Silk Road sales accounted for just 4%.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is that big or small? Also, here is Felix Salmon with <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/10/02/the-fbi-and-the-legitimation-of-the-bitcoinverse/">another good analysis</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>On top of that, the numbers in the FBI complaint are highly misleading. The complaint says that Silk Road’s total revenue, of 9.5 million BTC, and commission, of 614,305 BTC, “are equivalent to roughly $1.2 billion in revenue and $79.8 million in commissions, at current Bitcoin exchange rates, although the value of Bitcoins has fluctuated greatly during the time period at issue”. That’s putting it mildly. ... [In June 2011, a 50 bitcoins were worth about $150, or $3 each.]</p>
<p>Those 50 bitcoins are part of the FBI’s 9.5 million BTC total, but rather than being worth $50, the FBI is now valuing them at about $6,300. As a result, the $1.2 billion number should be taken with a monster pinch of salt. Besides, if you consider that the FBI is looking at 898 days of Silk Road activity, that averages out at a pretty modest 10,600 BTC per day. That’s hardly the “underpinning” of the bitcoin market, which normally sees somewhere between 200,000 BTC and 400,000 BTC per day in total trading volume.</p>
</blockquote>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/03/silk-road-share-of-bitcoinThu, 03 Oct 2013 15:24:03 +0000Bitcoin price collapses, nosedives, plunges, and plummetshttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/02/bitcoin-price-drop
<p>Here are some headlines I&#39;m collecting for claim chowder later this week:</p>
<p><strong>Business Insider:</strong> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bitcoin-collapse-silk-road-2013-10">CHART OF THE DAY: Bitcoin Collapses Following Silk Road Shutdown</a> </p>
<p><strong>The Verge:</strong> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/2/4795386/bitcoin-price-nosedives-after-bust-of-underground-drug-market-silk">Bitcoin price nosedives after bust of underground drug market Silk Road</a></p>
<p><strong>Zero Hedge:</strong> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://zerohedge.feedsportal.com/c/34894/f/645423/s/31fae909/sc/21/l/0L0Szerohedge0N0Cnews0C20A130E10A0E0A20Cbitcoin0Eplunges0Efollowing0Eus0Egovernment0Eseizure0Esilk0Eroad0Ewebsite/story01.htm">BitCoin Plunges Following US Government Seizure Of Silk Road Website</a></p>
<p><strong>Business Insider:</strong> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-value-drops-after-silk-road-shut-down-2013-10">Bitcoin Value Plummeting Following The Silk Road Shut Down</a></p>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/02/bitcoin-price-dropWed, 02 Oct 2013 20:32:48 +0000Some quick thoughts on Silk Road's demise and what it means for Bitcoinhttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/02/silk-road
<p>As you know doubt have heard, Silk Road <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/10/feds-take-down-online-fraud-bazaar-silk-road-arrest-alleged-mastermind/">has been shut down</a> by the FBI and its alleged operator, Ross Ulbricht, has been arrested. I&#39;ve been getting a lot of questions about this and what it means for Bitcoin. Here are some initial thoughts.</p>
<p><strong>The price of Bitcoin is dropping. What does that mean?</strong> It means that speculators are speculating. That said, here&#39;s how I&#39;m going to read it: If the main value of Bitcoin is that it can be used to buy drugs on Silk Road (<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://techliberation.com/2013/06/20/national-review-gets-bitcoin-very-wrong/">as some contend</a>), then we should see the value drop to zero is short order. If Bitcoin has other value, we should see it weather this jolt. One year ago a Bitcoin traded for about $14. As I type this, it&#39;s hovering at about <strike>$118</strike> $127.</p>
<p><strong>How did they catch the guy?</strong> Good question. I don&#39;t know the answer, but that won&#39;t stop me from speculating. I will point out two things. First is this from the criminal complaint against Ross Ulbricht:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>During the course of this investigation, the FBI has located a number of computer servers, both in the United States and in multiple foreign countries, associated with the operation of Silk Road. In particular, the FBI has located in a certain foreign country the server used to host Silk Road&#39;s website (the &quot;Silk Road Web Server&quot;). Pursuant to a mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request, an image of the Silk Road Web Server was made on or about July 23, 2013, and produced thereafter to the FBI.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>OK. So how did the FBI &quot;locate&quot; the servers that hosted the Silk Road Tor hidden service? The FBI has recently <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/fbi-admits-what-we-all-suspected-it-compromised-freedom-hostings-tor-servers/">admitted</a> that they have exploited vulnerabilities in Tor to identify users. Could it be that they exploited some vulnerability in this case? I look forward to finding out.</p>
<p>That said, here is another possibility. Also according to the criminal complaint (emphasis added),</p>
<blockquote>
<p>On or about July 10, 2013, [Customs and Border Patrol] intercepted a package from the mail inbound from Canada as part of a <em>routine</em> border search. The package was found to contain nine counterfeit identity documents. Each of the counterfeit identification documents was in a different name yet all contained a photograph of the same person.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That person was Ulbricht and the package was addressed to him. Maybe it was from this lead that the FBI was able to begin the process of identifying the servers, once they had a suspect. If so, and if this indeed was a &quot;routine&quot; search, then the authorities got completely lucky!</p>
<p>Finally, I&#39;ll point out that Bitcoin was in no way involved in the identification of the suspect. In fact, in the criminal complaint the FBI argues that because the blockchain (Bitcoin&#39;s public ledger) is pseudonymous, that it is not useful in tracing transactions. I don&#39;t think that&#39;s quite right, but that&#39;s how the FBI sees it in this case. So, in this case at least, the privacy Bitcoin affords was not compromised in any way.</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE:</strong> As I think about this some more, it&#39;s clear that the FBI was able to identify Ross Ulbricht because he posted his Gmail address to the Bitcoin Talk forum using the same username that first mentioned Silk Road <em>ever</em>. So, what are the chances that the CPB search that turned up the package of fake IDs bound for Ulbricht was routine? If it was routine, it was routine in the sense that <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html?pagewanted=all">packages to people on a watchlist</a> might be routinely searched. I&#39;m still not clear how the FBI got from identifying a possible suspect to locating the server for the Silk Road Tor hidden service.</p>
<p><strong>How do you seize Bitcoins?</strong> I&#39;m surprised by how many times I&#39;ve been asked this question. It&#39;s amazing what it is that people <em>seize</em> upon in a story. &lt; cough &gt; I don&#39;t know how the authorities have carried out the seizure, but it&#39;s not to difficult to conceive how it could be done. Basically they would have to get the private keys to the suspect&#39;s Bitcoin addresses. (Think of it essentially like getting the password to an account.) They could either get that with his cooperation or if he had stored it somewhere now accessible to the authorities. Once they have the private keys, they would be able to transfer the bitcoins and I imagine that they would transfer them to a Bitcoin address that only they control.</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE:</strong> So I got ahold of the <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://techliberation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SilkRoadProtectiveOrder.pdf">seizure order</a> and indeed I was correct that this is how the government will try to go about seizing the bitcoins. From the court order:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The United States is further authorized to seize any and all Bitcoins contained in wallet files residing on Silk Road servers, including those servers enumerate in the caption of this Complaint, pending the outcome of this civil proceeding, by transffering the full account balance in each Silk Road wallet to a public Bitcoin address controlled by the United States.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But to be clear, to seize bitcoins you do need to get the &quot;password&quot; that controls them. You can&#39;t just go to an intermediary and order that an account be frozen as you can do with traditional financial intermediaries like banks or PayPal.</p>
<p>I&#39;ll be tweeting and posting more as I learn more about what happened, but those are my initial thoughts. Shoot me any questions or thoughts you have. I&#39;m at @jerrybrito on Twitter. And by the way, you can follow all the coverage of the Silk Road arrest and seizure on my site <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://mostlybitcoin.com">Mostly Bitcoin</a>.</p>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/02/silk-roadWed, 02 Oct 2013 18:21:36 +0000Mel Watt proposes true Internet radio fairnesshttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/01/compulsory-licensing
<p>Over the past year, as the debate over internet radio royalty rates has raged, I have been a lonely voice calling for the repeal for compulsory licensing of digital performance rights altogether. I did so at the Cato <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cato.org/events/copyright-unbalanced-incentive-excess">event</a> for my book, <em>Copyright Unbalanced</em>, in January at a State of the Net <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.netcaucus.org/conference/2013/netmusic.shtml">panel</a>, and in my <em>Reason</em> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/08/compulsory-licensing-title-tk">column</a>. The reaction I often received was either one of outrage by the Pandoras of the world, or condescension for my naive optimism. Well, optimism can pay off. Yesterday Rep. Mel Watt, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee&#8217;s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, introduced the &#8220;Free Market Royalty Act,&#8221; which among other things gets rid of compulsory licensing.</p>
<p>The problem with the compulsory licensing scheme is twofold: Not only does it rely on federal bureaucrats to set the rates that artists must accept for their music (rather than allowing a free-market negotiation take place between copyright holders and those who want to broadcast their songs), but it also allows Congress to pick winners and losers by assigning different royalty rate standards to different users. As I explained in <em>Reason</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While AM, FM, cable and satellite radio, and Internet radio services like Pandora can all opt for compulsory licenses, they each pay different royalty rates. The rates are set by a panel of government lawyers called the Copyright Royalty Board, and they have the effect of favoring some business models over others. Internet radio services pay over 60 percent of their revenue in royalties, while Sirius XM, the only satellite radio company, pays only 8 percent. AM and FM radio aren&#8217;t subject to a digital sound recording right, so it pays zero.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Watt&#8217;s bill would blow all this up, making terrestrial broadcasters, Internet radio services, and the rest to give up their price-fixed compulsory licenses and have to negotiate in a market the rates they pay. This truly levels the playing field, especially vis-a-vis interactive music services like Spotify and Rdio that have never benefited from compulsory licenses.</p>
<p>Whether you talk to supporters of Rep. Chaffetz&#8217;s Internet Radio Fairness Act or Rep. Nadler&#8217;s Interim FIRST Act, they each will say their bill is the true fre market approach, and that their rate-setting standard would best approximate a market. To them I say, nothing better approximates a market than the market itself, so if they are truly concerned about ensuring a free market level playing field, here is the way to do it.</p>
<p>One advantage of compulsory licensing is that it can reduce transactions costs. The Watt bill retains some of this advantage by designating SoundExchange, a nonprofit agency, as the common agent for copyright owners to facilitate negotiations, but allowing labels and artists to retain the right to opt-out and negotiate on their own. If this bill passes, I think we&#8217;ll see some very interesting experimentation with business models on the part of both the artists and the radio stations.</p>
<p>Finally, looking at <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/325571-radio-stations-would-pay-for-music-under-house-bill">the</a>) <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://variety.com/2013/music/news/free-market-royalty-act-radio-station-royalty-1200681967/">press</a> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/495788-Rep_Watt_Introduces_Radio_Performance_Right_Legislation.php">coverage</a> of this bill, what has gotten the most attention is that it would, for the first time, require terrestrial AM/FM radio stations to negotiate and pay royalties for the sound recordings they broadcast. The way I see it, it&#8217;s not clear to me why broadcasters deserve yet another subsidy, so I shed no tears for them if this bill passes. Broadcasters argue that they provide promotional value for the songs they broadcast, that this benefits copyright holder, and that they should therefore continue to pay nothing. If it is indeed the case that airplay provides substantial promotional value, that will be taken into account in the course of negotiations and we should expect the ultimate rate to reflect that. Indeed, you can even imagine an outcome where the free market rate for terrestrial stations would remain at zero, or even that copyright holders would want to pay the stations. That&#8217;s the beauty of the market, so let&#8217;s unleash it.</p>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/01/compulsory-licensingTue, 01 Oct 2013 15:21:36 +0000Randall Stross on Y Combinatorhttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/01/podcast-randall-stross
<p>On my podcast <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://surprisinglyfree.com/2013/10/01/randall-stross/">this week</a>, Randall Stross discusses his recent book: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591846587/jerrybritocom/ref=nosim/"><em>The Launch Pad: Inside Y Combinator, Silicon Valley’s Most Exclusive School for Startups</em></a>. Stross’s behind-the-scenes look at Y Combinator details how the seed fund has been able to produce young entrepreneurs and successful startups such as Dropbox and Airbnb. Stross also discusses Y Combinator’s early history, the typical Y Combinator participant, the fund’s rate of return, the gender gap in the program, and the reason Silicon Valley has become the epicenter for startups.</p>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/10/01/podcast-randall-strossTue, 01 Oct 2013 14:43:55 +0000Why the FCC should stay out of cell phone unlockinghttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/09/25/fcc-cellphone-unlocking
<p>Earlier this week <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/fcc-filing/2013/ntia-petition-rulemaking-unlocking-mobile-devices">NTIA petitioned</a> the FCC to adopt a rule requiring wireless carriers to unlock the cell phones of customers and former customers who request it, and today the <em>New York Times</em> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/unchained-cellphones.html?partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss&amp;_r=0">editorialized</a> in support. While such a rule would solve the immediate problem of cell phone unlocking, it would be a band-aid solution that avoids dealing with the real problem: the DMCA&#39;s anti-circumvention provisions.</p>
<p>As I&#39;ve <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://techliberation.com/2013/03/05/the-free-market-case-for-cell-phone-unlocking/">explained before</a>, the cell phone unlocking issue is just one symptom of a greater problem, namely that it is illegal for you or any third party you contract to unlock content that you own. This affects not just phones, but also e-readers, music and video players, and even garage door openers and printer cartridges in the view of some. So I have to disagree with CDT when it <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="https://www.cdt.org/blogs/andrew-mcdiarmid/2309phone-unlocking-not-about-copyright">says</a>, &quot;Perhaps the best feature of the NTIA’s approach is that it skips the absurd debate over copyright and DMCA exemptions and treats phone unlocking as what it is – a telecom issue.&quot;</p>
<p>Cell phone unlocking, despite what the name might lead you to think, is not a telecom issue; it&#39;s a DMCA issue. You can see this if you think about all the restrictions that remain in place even if the FCC were to adopt the NTIA&#39;s proposed rule. For example, the rule forces carriers to unlock your phone at your request, but it would still be illegal for you to unlock your own phone, or to have a third party (such as a competing carrier that wants your business) unlock your phone.</p>
<p>Bottom line: It&#39;s really strange to solve a problem created by Section 1201 of the DMCA by turning to the FCC to force carriers to give up their rights under the DMCA. Indeed, it removes a contractual possibility from the market because under the rule a carrier could no longer contract with a consumer to keep the phone unlocked for the duration of the contract. That&#39;s an option that should be available to carriers and consumers. Any fix to this DMCA-created problem must leave the freedom to contract alone. The better way to address cell phone unlocking is to have the FCC stay out of what is an issue that Congress needs to address. Rep. Lofgren&#39;s Unlocking Technology Act, for example, <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://techliberation.com/2013/05/09/three-cheers-for-rep-lofgrens-new-cellphone-unlocking-and-anti-circumvention-bill/">does just that</a>.</p>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/09/25/fcc-cellphone-unlockingWed, 25 Sep 2013 15:27:26 +0000Seriously uncompromisinghttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/09/23/no-trust-no-compromise
<p>Many “serious people” are beginning to make the case that it’s time for the outrage and indignation over the NSA&#39;s mass surveillance to subside and give way to a “national conversation” about how much privacy and liberty we are willing to trade for security, which they argue is a &quot;choice we have to make.&quot; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/23/how-much-surveillance-can-we-accept">Today at <em>Reason</em> I argue</a> that until we have good reason to trust the oversight mechanisms that we are told will keep the system honest---or indeed trust the mechanisms for formulating such an oversight regime---civil libertarians have no reason to feel sheepish about obstinately refusing to make that &quot;choice we have to make.&quot;</p>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/09/23/no-trust-no-compromiseMon, 23 Sep 2013 20:48:39 +0000Restrictions on surveillance caused 9/11?http://jerrybrito.com/2013/09/23/privacy-caused-911
<p>Gordon Crovitz, with whom I usually agree on tech policy, <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323808204579089153571584472.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop">writing</a> at the <em>WSJ</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>President Obama says he wants a debate on surveillance, but until recently only critics have been heard. This month, voices on the other side emerged to correct the record on how the National Security Agency operates. That&#39;s important. The last time the government restricted surveillance and intelligence sharing in the name of privacy, in the 1990s, the result was 9/11.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I thought 9/11 was the result of terrorists flying planes into buildings, not Americans choosing what limits they place on their government. If it&#39;s as Crovitz puts it, then terrorists can dictate to us how we run our government. That&#39;s a worse result than the occasional terrorist attack.</p>
<p>Funny side note, here&#39;s <em>Computer Weekly</em> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240205710/NSA-reveals-how-Snowden-accessed-secret-Prism-files">explaining</a> to what the increased intelligence sharing led:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Prism internet surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden accessed the secret documents in a file-sharing location, US National Security Agency (NSA) officials have revealed. ... Such file-sharing locations were set up after it was revealed that intelligence agencies failed to &quot;connect the dots&quot; before the 9/11 attacks in 2001 because they were unaware of what other agencies knew.</p>
</blockquote>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/09/23/privacy-caused-911Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:29:03 +0000Millennials care more about experiences than stuffhttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/09/22/millennials-postmaterialism
<p>Some interesting nuggets from a <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/68707e76-204b-11e3-b8c6-00144feab7de.html">trend piece</a> in the <em>FT</em> on millennials&#39; attitudes toward media:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Research conducted by MTV shows that this generation appear to care less than their elders about being rich, being good-looking or driving a nice car (indeed, any car).</p>
<p>“They see through the marketing bullshit in 20 seconds. We’ve almost got to unlearn everything,” says David Jones, chief executive of the advertising group Havas.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here&#39;s more:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The Napster generation was born in a vacuum with no technology that could prevent piracy. Now there are better technologies and young people are more willing to pay,” says Matt Britton, chief executive of MRY, a youth-focused ad agency owned by Publicis. “Access is more important than ownership for this group. They value experiences versus owning things.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bodes well for the <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://theumlaut.com/2013/04/18/why-choosing-to-make-less-money-is-easier-than-ever/">threshold earner hypothesis</a>. Thanks to <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/">Jeff Garzik</a> for the link.</p>Jerry Britohttp://jerrybrito.com/2013/09/22/millennials-postmaterialismSun, 22 Sep 2013 13:11:11 +0000Gina Keating on netflixhttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2013/05/21/gina-keating/
Gina Keating, author of <em> Netflixed: The Epic Battle for America's Eyeballs, </em> discusses the startup of Netflix and their competition with Blockbuster.http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5232Tue, 21 May 2013 14:00:22 +0000

Gina Keating, author of Netflixed: The Epic Battle for America’s Eyeballs, discusses the startup of Netflix and their competition with Blockbuster.

Keating begins with the history of the company and their innovative improvements to the movie rental experience. She discusses their use of new technology and marketing strategies in DVD rental, which inspired Blockbuster to adapt to the changing market.

Keating goes on to describe Netflix’s transition to internet streaming and Blockbuster’s attempts to retain their market share.

]]>Timothy Ravich on droneshttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2013/05/14/timothy-ravich/
Timothy Ravich, a board certified aviation lawyer in private practice and an adjunct professor of law at the Florida International University School of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, discusses the future of unmanned aerial system (UAS), also known as drones.http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5220Tue, 14 May 2013 10:00:29 +0000

Timothy Ravich, a board certified aviation lawyer in private practice and an adjunct professor of law at the Florida International University School of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, discusses the future of unmanned aerial system (UAS), also known as drones.

Ravich defines what UAVs are, what they do, and what their potential non-military uses are. He explains that UAV operations have outpaced the law in that they are not sufficiently supported by a dedicated and enforceable regime of rules, regulations, and standards respecting their integration into the national airspace.

Ravich goes on to explain that Congress has mandated the FAA to integrate UAS into the national airspace by 2015, and explains the challenges the agency faces. Among the novel issues domestic drone use raises are questions about trespass, liability, and privacy.

]]>W. Patrick McCray on visioneershttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2013/05/07/w-patrick-mccray/
W. Patrick McCray, author of <em>The Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies, and a Limitless Future,</em> tells the story of these modern utopians who predicted that their technologies could transform society as humans mastered the ability to create new worlds. http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5212Tue, 07 May 2013 10:00:51 +0000

W. Patrick McCray, author of The Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies, and a Limitless Future, tells the story of these modern utopians who predicted that their technologies could transform society as humans mastered the ability to create new worlds.

Believing that the term “futurist” was too broad, McCray coined the term visioneers to describe those who not only had ambitious visions for future technology, but who carried out detailed and extensive scientific and engineering work to bring those visions into fruition, and who actively worked to promote their ideas to a wider public.

McCray focuses on the works of Gerard O’Neil and Eric Drexler, detailing their early contributions as visioneers and their continuing impact particularly in the fields of space colonization and nanotechnology. He also identifies modern-day visioneers and their work.

]]>Alex Tabarrok on innovationhttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2013/04/30/alex-tabarrok/
Alex Tabarrok, author of the ebook <em>Launching The Innovation Renaissance: A New Path to Bring Smart Ideas to Market Fast</em> discusses America's declining growth rate in total factor productivity, what this means for the future of innovation, and what can be done to improve the situation.http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5201Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:00:15 +0000

Alex Tabarrok, author of the ebook Launching The Innovation Renaissance: A New Path to Bring Smart Ideas to Market Fast discusses America’s declining growth rate in total factor productivity, what this means for the future of innovation, and what can be done to improve the situation.

Accroding to Tabarrok, patents, which were designed to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, have instead become weapons in a war for competitive advantage with innovation as collateral damage. College, once a foundation for innovation, has been oversold. And regulations, passed with the best of intentions, have spread like kudzu and now impede progress to everyone’s detriment. Tabarrok outs forth simple reforms in each of these areas and also explains the role immigration plays in innovation and national productivity.

]]>Paul Heald on the public domainhttp://surprisinglyfree.com/2013/04/23/paul-heald/
Paul J. Heald, professor of law at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, discusses his new book "Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter the Public Domain? Empirical Tests of Copyright Term Extension."
The international debate over copyright term extension for existing works turns on the validity of three empirical assertions about what happens to works when they fall into the public domain. Heald discusses a study he carried out with Christopher Buccafusco that found that all three assertions are suspect. In the study, they show that audio books made from public domain bestsellers are significantly more available than those made from copyrighted bestsellers. They also demonstrate that recordings of public domain and copyrighted books are of equal quality.http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=5192Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:00:05 +0000

Paul J. Heald, professor of law at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, discusses his new paper “Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter the Public Domain? Empirical Tests of Copyright Term Extension.”

The international debate over copyright term extension for existing works turns on the validity of three empirical assertions about what happens to works when they fall into the public domain. Heald discusses a study he carried out with Christopher Buccafusco that found that all three assertions are suspect. In the study, they show that audio books made from public domain bestsellers are significantly more available than those made from copyrighted bestsellers. They also demonstrate that recordings of public domain and copyrighted books are of equal quality.

Since copyrighted works will once again begin to fall into the public domain starting in 2018, Heald says, it’s likely that content owners will ask Congress for yet another term extension. He argues that his empirical findings suggest it should not be granted.